Did Soviets really want a piece of Africa in 1945+?

There is a little known fact that, in Yalta/Potsdam/other conferences of the time, Soviet Union seemingly in all seriousness asked for a mandate (or 'trusteeship', or whatever) over one (usually not named) of former Italian colonies.

Link:
From encroachment to involvement: a documentary study of Soviet policy in the Middle East, 1945-1973, page 9

In other sources, Molotov's proposal to divide Libya into four 'trusteeships', with USSR taking Tripoli, pops up.

This issue seems to have been discussed in at least four conferences, but with little result.

So, I'm wondering:

* Were Soviets serious about this, or was it just an element of obstruction/distraction tactic?
* Did they have any chance of getting something?
* What would they do with it?
 
I'd heard that the Soviets wanted a Mandate over all of Libya, had'nt heard the idea of only part of it, or any of the other Italian colonies.

If they did get one, or more it could have the potential to change modern African history a great deal, I mean if they got one, and then incorporated it as an SSR they could'nt really get the support of Independence movements in Africa or elsewhere to the same level, since they would be seen as a colonial power themselves.

As for how likely it is, well it all depends on the circumstances, for instance, say that instead of demanding its neutrality, the Soviets instead hand over Eastern Austria in return for an African Mandate, or similar situations.
 
I'd heard that the Soviets wanted a Mandate over all of Libya, had'nt heard the idea of only part of it, or any of the other Italian colonies.

If they did get one, or more it could have the potential to change modern African history a great deal, I mean if they got one, and then incorporated it as an SSR they could'nt really get the support of Independence movements in Africa or elsewhere to the same level, since they would be seen as a colonial power themselves.

As for how likely it is, well it all depends on the circumstances, for instance, say that instead of demanding its neutrality, the Soviets instead hand over Eastern Austria in return for an African Mandate, or similar situations.

Handing over Austria for Libya would have been a good play. As for making it an SSR, why bother? Better to have a puppet, a Bulgaria in Africa (kinda sorta).
What does this mean for the Cold War? Well for one the Sovs would have a port/base structure in the Med. They would be astride the bomber routes from North Africa to the motherland and within missile range of a lot of important places. There would be more AKs in Africa (if that is possible) and maybe the whole Cubans in Angola thing might include a Libyan component (at the suggestion of the USSR). I bet Egypt stays in the USSRs pocket much longer. The attack across the Suez might have some units from a communist Libya (Yom Kippur War) making the attack stronger.
Bet your dollars that any kind of "Gulf of Sidra" type incident would not go away so nicely. But then again maybe the incidents that forced those encounters IOTL wouldn't happen.

All kinds of butterflies to be had in this.
 
This is true. In August 1945, there was a meeting in London of foreign ministers to discuss post-war issues. Stalin wanted an outlet to the Mediterranean. He was also putting pressure on Turkey at the time. Molotov asked for a mandate on Italian Libya. There was supposed to be some vague promise made by Ameria to the USSR at the April 1945 United Nations conference in San Francisco. But at London, the US sided with the UK to deny the Soviets any naval base. They asked for merchant fleet base instead, but was again rebuffed.

This does not appear to have been a tactical bluff, but a sincere attempt to expand Soviet power to the Mediterranean. However, the Soviets had very little clout, and couldn't do anything when the UK and US decided against it.

The Soviets were pushing for a lot at the time. Not only were they ruling Eastern Europe and manipulating events in China, Stalin was putting immense pressure on Turkey and Persia. His basic plan was to put pressure everywhere and see where the West pushed back.

There wasn't any real chance of the Soviets getting this. The UK did not want them in the Mediterranean period. The US was increasingly becoming anti-Soviet as Stalin's demands got higher and higher. And Stalin had no clout to make things happen anyway.

If the Soviets did ever get a mandate, or at least a base in Tripoli, then Libya more or less becomes a Communist country. The Soviets would be able to project power directly into the Mediterranean, with implications for eventual NATO strategy (although it would be some time before their navy would be a real factor). Expect the Soviets to play a much more active role in colonial troubles in Egypt and French North Africa. On the down side, Libya would be a long way from Russia, and any troops there would be vulnerable to a native insurgency (possibly backed by the West). I think the most the Soviets could hope to do was for a secure naval base to cause lots of trouble, while accepting a friendly government in Libya that was not actually Communist. Still, if they could create some kind of native Libyan Communist party, the example would make things very difficult in other Arab countries.
 
I'd go for a puppet rather than a SSR as well. And the strategic situation of a Soviet port - with domestic oil production - in the Med is significant. It makes North Africa a major spot in the cold war.

Another important issue is economics. At least from GDR I know that access to tropical crops like tea, coffee, bananas and the like has always been a problem due to lack of hard currency. If Libya or Somalia were firmly within the Eastern bloc, I can see massive investment of many Eastern European countries there to ensure a cheap supply of tropical consumer goods similar to Cuba having made a good deal with tropical goods against oil and industrial goods from the Soviets.
 
Top